A personal experience with M43 cameras changes everything. Full-frame marketers prefer to prevent that with theories like "bigger is better." For example, why should I buy an OM-5 II or the OM-3 if they are inferior to full-frame cameras? It has become almost normal for respected influencers to suggest that M43 cameras have inferior image quality. There are also several videos suggesting that the high-resolution function is inferior to 40 MP or higher FF cameras. Why would people think OM Workspace is inferior to the commercial RAW converters from Adobe and DxO? Shouldn't the logical alternative be to convert your high-resolution RAW files with Workspace or the TruePic X image processor, especially with the new and improved PC-RAW mode of the OM-3, OM-1 Mk I/II, and Workspace?
The E-M5 III (OM-5) with the M.Zuiko 12-45mm f4 pro, 17mm f1.8, and 75mm f1.8 lenses is an excellent day or low-light option.
It's concerning that we don't have basic guidelines to "manage" modern digital cameras. The guidelines we do have are an outdated analog exposure triangle and the "bigger is better" theory. It should be normal to have a digital exposure triangle supporting technical aspects like sensor saturation and ISO amplification. The analog exposure triangle, "size and capture," and "ISO sensitivity" guides disregard the differences between the technical and optical aspects of digital cameras. Modern photographers will benefit from practical guides like the digital exposure triangle and an image-signal flow diagram. For example, it should be normal for modern photographers to manage optical controls like DOF and technical controls like sensor saturation and image signal amplification (ISO) in 2026.
Goto my Page Menu or open this link for the full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment